Browse Groups

• ## Re: [jlnlabs] Chernetsky Plasma Generator - off topic Comments on Resonance

(1)
• NextPrevious
• ... To reduce it to its simplest ... This reply is a bit off topic, but we need to look at arguments that confound the conventional point of view. We are
Message 1 of 1 , Jun 2, 2004
View Source
--- Tim Ventura <tventura6@...> wrote:
> Video Online at:
> http://www.nuenergy.org/alt/chernetsky.htm
>
> The Chernetsky Plasma Generator
To reduce it to its simplest
> characterization, the error seemed
> to be along lines similar to power factor error
> often encountered in energy
> device evaluation by those not knowledgeable about
> this type of problem.
This reply is a bit off topic, but we need to look at
arguments that confound the conventional point of
view.
We are taught that the power loss by I^2R heating
losses on the resistive components DOES represent the
true power input to a device. We are also taught that
the "reactive" power input to a device, which is
simply the input voltage times the amperage, or VI,:
this quantity DOES NOT represent the true power input.
Then we are told the reasoning behind this, it has to
do with phase angles ect... The VI calculation as the
input ALSO includes the borrowed and returned energies
expressed as oscillation between electric and magnetic
fields, and since the energy is merely borrowed and
then returned a half cycle later, that input is
considered to be a "real" portion of the power input.
Thus generally VI will alway be greater then I^2R for
a reactive load, and if we need to know the true power
being inputed, we simply look at the amount of heat
being created by that quantity I^2R. The REASON for
this again is made by the phase angle argument, which
states that because V and I are out of phase with each
other, we cannot simply multiply V by I to obtain the
wattage input. Now if we DO make the conditions so
that V and I are in phase, or in other words we bring
the reactance up to series resonance, then V IS in
phase with I, and VI becomes an accurate measurement
of the true power input, because now these things are
closely in phase, and in those situations, VI should
equal I^2R. We have brought up the phase angle
difference that can be near to a 90 degree phase angle
difference from what exists in the reactive state, up
to a situation where that angle is now near zero
degrees, and V and I act simultaneously according to
Ohms law, if we are lucky enough to have a perfectly
acting resonance. Here is where we come to a crucial
crossing point with the self generated assumptions. If
we ASSUME that the VI quantity is always greater then
the I^2R quantity, because of the phase angle
difference of electrical actions that dictates a
certain portion of input is not real because of this
phase angle difference that allows for the existence
of borrowed and returned reactive energies, when we
decrease that phase angle difference to zero degrees
as occurs in series resonance so that VI now becomes
identical to I^2R, this might imply that we have also
eliminated that fictitious entity known as borrowed
and returned energy, because NOW VI does equal I^2R.
IN FACT THE EXACT OPPOSITE ACTION OCCURS; THE BORROWED
AND RETURNED ENERGIES HAVE NOT BEEN ELIMINATED, THEY
HAVE BEEN ENHANCED Q TIMES THE AMOUNT FOUND IN THE
FORMER REACTIVE STATE OF THE LOAD. This is what makes
those energy oscillations literally free extra energy
expressions, because now the source is not paying for
them! VI has ceased to be a larger value then I^2R.

Now all of this literally has little or nothing
to do with the point I am trying to make here, but it
is supplied as background info for the understanding
of resonant effects, where it has been brought out
that the apparent energy input is always greater then
the actual energy input, because VI > I^2R. What
becomes questionable and problematic with this
thinking, that the I^2R amount is ALWAYS the true
energy input, is the situation that is encountered
when VI becomes LESS then I^2R. In the effects I have
made with an alternator line coupled air core
transformer configured with a third element as the
magnifier of the initial energy transfer from primary
to secondary, the ending element will contain more
amperage initially obtained by magnetic fields moving
through space obtained through the air as the
conveying medium, then the amount of amperage that
would be obtained if we instead gave that element a
direct line connection to the source of voltage! Talk
possible by the fact that in resonance those magnetic
fields are obtained as a "byproduct" of the energy
input, where as I have noted, those magnetic field
expressions of movement are literally obtained for
free, with respect to the source itself as that
provider. How can this be possible? Well in
ferromagnetic transformers we understand that when we
step up the voltage, the VI primary input should be
slightly greater then the VI secondary output, for the
ferromagnetic transformer that is slightly under 100%
efficiency. But for this particular example, which
could be called a "power factor corrected" air core
transformer, the input VI quantity arranged as two
primary coils configured in a figure 8 tank circuit,
where on the secondary side two high induction coils
then produce another VI quantity, and of course the
fact that the voltage has been stepped up means a
concomitant redution of the amperage on that
secondary, all this is true. But when we take that
second VI quantity, that is so far obeying these ratio
rules, (actually in this example the amp turns on
secondaries exceed the amp turns of the primaries
which can be a permissable aspect of resonant
transformers): as I was saying there IS a reduction of
amperage when the voltage is stepped up, if we simply
stopped there. However we can take this same resonant
secondary voltage rise, and then give it a third
component of the (figure 8 tank) magnifier itself as
the actual ending load, and then compare VI of the
primary, to VI of the magnifier tank and what we then
find is that the VI of the magnifier exceeds the VI of
the primary. Essentially the voltage has been stepped
up, but no amperage loss has taken place on the ending
component, even though it contains 10 times more
resistance then found on the actual primaries
themselves,(because of the resonant amperage rise that
occurs on tank circuits) from the source of the feeble
secondary high induction coil currents being stepped
up voltage input currents that has initially been
reduced from the currents found on the primaries, and
then again expanded on the ending circuit so that VI
(out) exceeds VI (in) on this triple resonant pathway
that has its first transformation made through air. A
comparison of the actual resistances of the input
primary vs the load are 10/1. So this certainly DOES
sound like a vibration that has been expanded BEYOND
the original vibration, and it sure does sound like
overunity....

BUT because we are sticking to the original argument
that the true power input must ALWAYS be classified as
the I^2R heating effect, what hasnt been taken into
effect is the resonant amperage rise on the primary
itself, since we have instead used the VI definition
as the power input. The amperage issuing through the
primaries is also greater than that being inputed,
just as in the second transformation to the ending
magnifier load. When we use that definition as the
true power input to the primary, the total
configuration no longer appears as overunity. But is
this a correct way to view things? Or essentially is
the reactive power input the true power input for a
tank circuit, since for that unique circumstance VI
can be less then I^2R and not greater, which is the
norm for apparent power arguments. Something to think
about. And to further these arguments, certain
experiments can show that apparently the currents in a
tank circuit are not merely close to 90 degrees out of
phase with the impressed voltage, as occurs with a
simple reactance, but rather they are close to 180
degrees out of phase with the source voltage. That in
itself might confound the usual phase angle arguments
in how we determine what is the actual real power
input vs the reactive one. It is quite possible I have
made some faulty assumptions in all of the above, but
if people can follow the argument, which may be
doubtful, I would like to know where my faulty
assumptions have began in the first place, so that
this situation can be better understood in the correct
light of day.

Sincerely HDN

PS Unfortunately when these triple resonant
transformations were investigated, I later found that
one of the high induction coils appeared to be
damaged, in that it had a far higher impedance then
what I assumed it to be, so everything made in this
category of investigation needs to be repeated, as one
of the secondaries could not possibly have been tuned
in the correct manner, but yet phenomenal results were
still obtained. I have no idea how this may have
occured, but in one instance I exceeded the voltages
that should be applied to the coil, causing a very
loud crackling noise to come from somewhere. This
occured in the runaway resonance that developed when
the parametric alternator output was recycled back to
the field, in efforts to obtain a self energized field
for an alternator.

=====
Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.